Scudding, denly to windward), she is threatened with being immediately overturned; and, for want of sea-room, she is endangered by shipwreck on a lee-shore, a circumstance too dreadful to require explanation.

SCULPONE, among the Romans, a kind ofscalponer, shoes worn by slaves of both sexes. These shoes were only blocks of wood made hollow, like the French

sabots.

I

Definition of sculpOrigin of

ture.

it,

S the art of carving wood or hewing stone into images. It is an art of the most remote antiquity, being practised, as there is reason to believe, before the general deluge. We are induced to assign to it this early origin, by considering the expedients by which, in the first stages of society, men have every where supplied the place of alphabetic characters. These, it is universally known, have been picture-writing, such as that of the Mexicans, which, in the progress of refinement and knowledge, was gradually improved into the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians and other ancient nations. See HIEROGLYPHICS.

That mankind should have lived near 1700 years, from the creation of the world to the flood of Noah, without falling upon any method to make their conceptions permanent, or to communicate them to a distance, is extremely improbable; especially when we call to mind that such methods of writing have been found, in modern times, among people much less enlightened than those must have been who were capable of building such a vessel as the ark. But if the antediluvians were acquainted with any kind of writing, there can be little doubt of its being hieroglyphical writing. Mr Bryant has proved that the Chaldeans were possessed of that art * Apud before the Egyptians; and Berosus informs us, that Syncellum, a delineation of all the monstrous forms which inhabit

P. 37.

+ Hist. Nat.

lib. vii. cap.

56.

2

not solely from idolatry;

ed the chaos, when this earth was in that state, was to be seen in the temple of Belus in Babylon. This delineation, as he describes it, must have been a history in hieroglyphical characters; for it consisted of human figures with wings, with two heads, and some with the horns and legs of goats. This is exactly similar to the hieroglyphical writings of the Egyptians; and it was preserved, our author says, both in drawings and engravings, in the temple of the god of Babylon. As Chaldea was the first peopled region of the earth after the flood, and as it appears from Pliny†, as well as from Berosus, that the art of engraving on bricks baked in the sun was there carried to a considerable degree of perfection at a very early period, the probability certainly is, that the Chaldeans derived the art of hieroglyphical writing, and consequently the rudiments of the art of sculpture, from their antediluvian ancestors.

It is generally thought that sculpture had its origin from idolatry, as it was found necessary to place before the people the images of their gods to enliven the fervour of their devotion: but this is probably a mistake. The worship of the heavenly bodies, as the only gods of the heathen nations, prevailed so long before the deification of dead men was thought of (see POLYTHEISM), that we cannot suppose mankind to have been, during all that time, ignorant of the art of hieroglyphical writing. But the deification of departed heroes undoubtedly gave rise to the almost universal practice of representing the gods by images of a human form; and therefore we must conclude, that the elements of sculpt

ture were known before that art was employed to enliven the devotion of idolatrous worshippers. The pyramids and obelisks of Egypt, which were probably temples, or rather altars, dedicated to the sun (see PYRAMID), were covered from top to bottom with hieroglyphical emblems of men, beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, at a period prior to that in which there is any unexceptionable evidence that mere statue-worship prevailed even in that nursery of idolatry.

3

to carry

But though it appears thus evident that picture- though it writing was the first employment of the sculptor, we probably are far from imagining that idolatrous worship did not contributed contribute to carry his art to that perfection which it the art to attained in some of the nations of antiquity. Even in perfection. the dark ages of Europe, when the other fine arts were almost extinguished, the mummery of the church of Rome, and the veneration which she taught for her saints and martyrs, preserved among the Italians some vestiges of the sister-arts of sculpture and painting; and therefore, as human nature is every where the same, it is reasonable to believe that a similar veneration for heroes and demigods would, among the ancient nations, have a similar effect. But if this be so, the presumption is, that the Chaldeans were the first who invented the art of hewing blocks of wood and stone into the figures of men and other animals; for the Chaldeans were unquestionably the first idolaters, and their early progress in sculpture is confirmed by the united testimonies of Berosus, Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, and Pliny; not to mention the eastern tradition, that the father of Abraham was a statuary.

was invent

Against this conclusion Mr Bromley, in his late Hi Mr Bromstory of the Fine Arts, has urged some plausible argu-ley's theoments. In stating these he professes not to be original, ry, that or to derive his information from the fountain-head of sculpture antiquity. He adopts, as he tells us, the theory of a ed by the French writer, who maintains, that in the year of the Scythians, world 1949, about 300 years after the deluge, the Scy-thians under Brouma, a descendant of Magog the son of Japhet, extended their conquests over the greater part of Asia. According to this system, Brouma was not only the civilizer of India, and the author of the braminical doctrines, but also diffused the principles of the Scythian mythology over Egypt, Phoenicia, Greece, and the continent of Asia.

Of these principles Mr Bromley has given us no distinct enumeration; the account which he gives of them is not to be found in one place, but to be collected from a variety of distant passages. In attempting therefore to present the substance of his scattered hints in one view, we will not be confident that we have omitted none of them. The ox, says he, was the Scythian emblem of the generator of animal life, and hence it became the principal divinity of the Arabians. The serpent was the symbol of the source of intelligent nature. These were the common points of union in all the first

religions

religions of the earth. From Egypt the Israelites carried with them a religious veneration for the ox and the serpent. Their veneration for the ox appeared soon after they marched into the wilderness, when in the absence of Moses they called upon Aaron to make them gods which should go before them. The idea of having an idol to go before them, says our author, was completely Scythian; for so the Scythians acted in all their progress through Asia, with this difference, that their idol was a living animal. The Israelites having gained their favourite god, which was an ox (not a calf as it is rendered in the book of Exodus), next proceeded to hold a festival, which was to be accompanied with dancing; a species of gaiety common in the festivals which were held in adoration of the emblematic Urotal or ox in that very part of Arabia near Mount Sinai where this event took place. It is mentioned too as a curious and important fact, that the ox which was revered in Arabia was called Adonai. According ly Aaron announcing the feast to the ox or golden calf, speaks thus, to-morrow is a feast to Adonai, which is in our translation rendered to the lord. In the time of Jeroboam we read of the golden calves set up as objects of worship at Bethel and Dan. Nor was the reverence paid to the ox confined to Scythia, to Egypt, and to Asia; it extended much farther. The ancient Cimbri, as the Scythians did, carried an ox of bronze before them on all their expeditions. Mr Bromley also informs us, that as great respect was paid to the living ox among the Greeks as was offered to its symbol among other nations.

The emblem of the serpent, continues Mr Bromley, was marked yet more decidedly by the express direction of the Almighty. That animal had ever been considered as emblematic of the supreme generating power of intelligent life: And was that idea, says he, discouraged, so far as it went to be a sign or symbol of life? when God said to Moses, "Make thee a brazen serpent, and set it on a pole, and it shall come to pass that every one who is bitten, when he looketh on it, shall live.” In Egypt the serpent surrounded their Isis and Osiris, the diadems of their princes, and the bonnets of their priests. The serpent made a distinguished figure in Grecian sculpture. The fable of Echidne, the mother of the Scythians, gave her figure terminating as a serpent to all the founders of states in Greece; from which their earliest sculptors represented in that form the Titan princes, Cecrops, Draco, and even Ericthonius. Beside the spear of the image of Minerva, which Phidias made for the citadel of Athens, he placed a serpent, which was supposed to guard that goddess.

The serpent was combined with many other figures. It sometimes was coiled round an egg as an emblem of the creation; sometimes round a trident, to show its power over the sea; sometimes it encircled a flambeau, to represent life and death.

In Egypt, as well as in Scythia and India, the divinity was represented on the leaves of the tamara or lotus. Pan was worshipped as a god in that country, as well as over the east. Their sphinxes, and all their combined figures of animal creation, took their origin from the mother of the Scythians, who brought forth an offspring that was half a woman and half a serpent. Their pyramids and obelisks arose from the idea of flame

the first emblem of the supreme principle, introduced by the Scythians, and which even the influence of Zoroaster and the Magi could not remove.

We are told that the Bacchus of the Greeks is derived from the Brouma of the Indians; that both are represented as scated on a swan swimming over the waves, to indicate that each was the god of humid nature, not the god of wine, but the god of waters. The mitre of Bacchus was shaped like half an egg; an emblem taken from this circumstance, that at the creation the egg from which all things sprung was divided in the middle. Pan also was revered among the Scythians; and from that people were derived all the emblems by which the Greeks represented this divinity.

It would be tedious to follow our author through the whole of this subject; and were we to submit to the laboug of collecting and arranging his scattered materials, we should still view his system with some degree of suspicion. It is drawn, as he informs us, from the work of M. D'Ancarville, intitled, Recherches sur l'Origine, l'Esprit, et les Progres, des Arts de la Grece.

5

To form conclusions concerning the origin of nations, il founded. the rise and progress of the arts and sciences, without the aid of historical evidence, by analogies which are sometimes accidental, and often fanciful, is a mode of reasoning which cannot readily be admitted. There may indeed, we acknowledge, be resemblances in the religion, language, manners, and customs, of different nations, so striking and so numerous, that to doubt of their being descended from the same stock would favour of scepticism. But historical theories must not be adopted rashly. We must be certain that the evidence is credible and satisfactory before we proceed to deduce any conclusions. We must first know whether the Scythian history itself be authentic, before we make any comparison with the history of other nations. But what is called the Scythian history, every man of learning knows to be a collection of fables. Herodotus and Justin are the two ancient writers from whom we have the fullest account of that warlike nation; but these two historians contradict each other, and both write what cannot be believed of the same people at the same period of their progress. Justin tells us, that there was a long and violent contest between the Scythians and Egyptians about the antiquity of their respective nations; and after stating the arguments on each side of the question, which, as he gives them are nothing to the pur-* Lib. ii. pose, he decides in favour of the claim of the Scy-cap. i. thians. Herodotus was too partial to the Egyptians, not to give them the palm of antiquity; and he was probably in the right; for Justin describes his most ancient of nations, even in the time of Darius Hystaspes, as ignorant of all the arts of civil life. They occu pied their land in common (says he), and cultivated none of it. They had no houses nor settled habitations, but wandered with their cattle from desert to desert. In these rambles they carried their wives and children in tumbrels covered with the skins of beasts, which served as houses to protect them from the storms of winter. They were without laws, governed by the dictates of natural equity. They coveted not gold or silver like the rest of mankind, and lived upon milk and honey. Though they were exposed to extreme cold, and had abundance of flocks, they knew not how to make garments of wool, but clothed themselves in the skins of G 2 wild

66

+ Lib. ii. cap. 2. Lib. vii. Lib. iv. cap. 62.

wild beasts +." This is the most favourable account which any ancient writer gives of the Scythians. By Strabo and Herodotus they are represented as the most savage of mortals, delighting in war and bloodshed, cutting the throats of all strangers who came among them, eating their flesh, and making cups and pots of their skulls. Is it conceivable that such savages could be sculptors; or that even, supposing their manners to have been such as Justin represents them, a people so simple and ignorant could have imposed their mythology upon the Chaldeans, Phenicians, and Egyptians, whom we know by the most incontrovertible evidence to have been great and polished nations so early as in the days of Abraham? No! We could as soon admit other novelties of more importance, with which the French of the present age pretend to enlighten the world, as this origin assigned by Mr Bromley to the art of sculpture, unless supported by better authority than that of D'Ancarville.

The inference of our author from the name of the sacred ox in Arabia, and from the dancing and gaiety which were common in the religious festivals of the Arabians, appears to us to be very hastily drawn. At the early period of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, the language of the Hebrews, Egyptians, and Arabians, differed not more from each other than do the different dialects of the Greek tongue which are found in the poems of Homer (see PHILOLOGY, Sect. III.); and it is certain that for many years after the formation of the golden-calf, the Hebrews were strangers to every species of idolatry but that which they had brought with them from their house of bondage. See REMPHAN.

Taking for granted, therefore, that the Scythians did not impose their mythology on the eastern nations, and that the art of sculpture, as well as hieroglyphic writing and idolatrous worship, prevailed first among the Chaldeans, we shall endeavour to trace the progress of this art through some other nations of antiquity, till we bring it to Greece, where it was carried to the highest perfection to which it has yet attained.

The first intimation that we have of the art of sculpture is in the book of Genesis, where we are informed, that when Jacob, by the divine command was returning to Canaan, his wife Rachel carried along with her the teraphim or idols of her father. These we are assured were small, since Rachel found it so easy to conceal them from her father, notwithstanding his anxious search. We are ignorant, however, how these images were made, or of what materials they were composed. The first person mentioned as an artist of eminence is Bezaleel, who formed the cherubims which covered the mercy-seat.

Egyptian The Egyptians also cultivated the art of sculpture; sculpture. but there were two circumstances which obstructed its progress. 1. The persons of the Egyptians were not possessed of the graces of form, of elegance, or of symmetry; and of consequence they had no perfect standard to model their taste. They resembled the Chinese in the cast of their face, in their great bellies, and in the clumsy rounding of their contours. 2. They were restrained by their laws to the principles and practices of their ancestors, and were not permitted to introduce any innovations. Their statues were always formed in the same stiff attitude, with the arms hanging perpendicular

ly down the sides. What perfection were they capable of who knew no other attitude than that of chairmen ? So far were they from attempting any improvements, that in the time of Adrian the art continued in the same rude state as at first; and when their slavish adulation for that emperor induced them to place the statue of his favourite Antinous among the objects of their worship, the same inanimate stiffness in the attitude of the body and position of the arms was observed. We believe it will scarcely be necessary to inform our readers that the Egyptian statue just now mentioned is very different from the celebrated statue of Antinous, of which so many moulds have been taken that imitations of it are now to be met with almost in every cabinet in Europe.

7

Notwithstanding the attachment of the Egyptians to ancient usages, Winkelman thinks he has discovered two different styles of sculpture which prevailed at different periods. The first of these ends with the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. The second begins at that time and extends beyond the reign of Alexander the Great. In the first style, the lines which form the contour are First style. straight and projecting a little; the position is stiff and unnatural: In sitting figures the legs are parallel, the feet squeezed together, and the arms fixed to the sides; but in the figures of women the left arm is folded across the breast; the bones and muscles are faintly discernible; the eyes are flat and looking obliquely, and the eyebrows sunk features which destroy entirely the beauty of the head; the cheek-bones are high, the chin small and piked; the ears are generally placed higher than in nature, and the feet are too large and flat. In short, if we are to look for any model in the statues of Egypt, it is not for the model of beauty but of deformity. The statues of men are naked, only they have a short apron, and a few folds of drapery surrounding their waist: The vestments of women are only distinguishable by the border, which rises a little above the surface of the statue. In this age it is evident the Egyptians knew little of drapery.

Of the second style of sculpture practised among the Second Egyptians, Winkelman thinks he has found specimens style. in the two figures of basaltes in the Capitol, and in another figure at Villa Albani, the head of which has been renewed. The first two of these, he remarks, bear visible traces of the former style which appear especially in the form of the mouth and shortness of the chin. The hands possess more elegance; and the feet are placed at a greater distance from each other, than was customary in more ancient times. In the first and third figures the arms hang down close to the sides. In the second they hang more freely. Winkelman suspects that these three statues have been made after the conquest of Egypt by the Greeks. They are clothed with a tunic, a robe, and a mantle. The tunic, which is puckered into many folds, descends from the neck to the ground. The robe in the first and third statues seems close to the body, and is only perceptible by some little folds. It is tied under the breast, and covered by the mantle, the two buttons of which are placed under the epaulet.

The Antinous of the Capitol is composed of two pieces, which are joined under the haunches. But as all the Egyptian statues which now remain have been hewn out of one block, we must believe that Diodorus,

Phenician

in saying the stone was divided, and each half finished by a separate artizan, spoke only of a colossus. The same author informs us, that the Egyptians divided the human body into 24 parts; but it is to be regretted that he has not given a more minute detail of that division.

The Egyptian statues were not only formed by the chisel, they were also polished with great care. Even those on the summit of an obelisk, which could only be viewed at a distance, were finished with as much labour and care as if they had admitted a close inspection. As they are generally executed in granite or basaltes, stones of a very hard texture, it is impossible not to admire the indefatigable patience of the artists.

The eye was often of different materials from the rest of the statue; sometimes it was composed of a precious stone or metal. We are assured that the valuable diamond of the empress of Russia, the largest and most beautiful hitherto known, formed one of the eyes of the famous statue of Scheringham in the temple of

Brama.

Those Egyptian statues which still remain are composed of wood or baked earth: and the statues of earth are covered with green enamel.

The Phenicians possessed both a character and situasculpture. tion highly favourable to the cultivation of statuary. They had beautiful models in their own persons, and their industrious character qualified them to attain perfection in every art for which they had a taste. Their situation raised a spirit of commerce, and commerce induced them to cultivate the arts. Their temples shone with statues and columns of gold, and a profusion of emerals was everywhere scattered. All the great works of the Phenicians have been unfortunately destroyed; but many of the Carthaginian medals are still preserved, ten of which are deposited in the cabinet of the grand duke of Florence. But though the Carthaginians were a colony of Phenicians, we cannot from their works judge of the merit of their ancestors.

This art not The Persians made no distinguished figure in the arts caltivated of design. They were indeed sensible to the charms of among the beauty, but they did not study to imitate them. Their Persians.

Etrurian

dress, which consisted of long flowing robes concealing the whole person, prevented them from attending to the beauties of form. Their religion, too, which taught them to worship the divinity in the emblem of fire, and that it was impious to represent him under a human form, seemed almost to prohibit the exercise of this art, by taking away those motives which alone could give it dignity and value; and as it was not customary among them to raise statues to great men, it was impossible that statuary could flourish in Persia.

The Etrurians or ancient Tuscans, in the opinion of acalpture. Winkelman, carried this art to some degree of perfection at an earlier period than the Greeks. It is said to have been introduced before the siege of Troy by Dedalus, who, in order to escape the resentment of Minos king of Crete, took refuge in Sicily, from whence he passed into Italy, where he left many monuments of his art. Pausanias and Diodorus Siculus informs us, that some works ascribed by him were to be seen when they wrote, and that these possessed that character of majesty which afterwards distinguished the labours of Etruria.

A character strongly marked forms the chief distinc

tion in those productions of Etruria which have descended to us. Their style was indeed hard and overcharged; a fault also committed by Michael Angelo, the celebrated painter of modern Etruria; for it is not to be supposed that a people of such rude manners as the Etrurians could communicate to their works that vividness and beauty which the elegance of Grecian manners inspired. On the other hand, there are many of the Tuscan statues which bear so close a resemblance to those of Greece, that antiquarians have thought it probable that they were conveyed from that country, or Magna Græcia, into Etruria, about the time of the Roman conquest, when Italy was adorned with the spoils of Greece.

12

Among the monuments of Etrurian art two different First style. styles have been observed. In the first the lines are straight, the attitude stiff, and no idea of beauty appears in the formation of the head. The contour is not well rounded, and the figure is too slender. The head is oval, the chin piked, the eyes flat, and looking asquint.

These are the defects of an art in the state of infancy, which an accomplished master could never fall into, and are equally conspicuous in Gothic statues as in the productions of the ancient natives of Florence. They resemble the style of the Egyptians so much, that one is almost induced to suppose that there had once been a communication between these two nations; but others think that this style was introduced by Dedalus.

13

Winkelman supposes that the second epoch of this Second art commenced in Etruria, about the time at which it style. had reached its greatest perfection in Greece, in the age of Phidias; but this conjecture is not supported by any proofs. To describe the second style of sculpture among the Etrurians, is almost the same as to describe the style of Michael Angelo and his numerous imitators. The joints are strongly marked, the muscles raised, the bones distinguishable; but the whole mien harsh. In designing the bone of the leg, and the separation of the muscles of the calf, there is an elevation and strength above life. The statues of the gods are designed with more delicacy. In forming them, the artists were anxious to show that they could exercise their power without that violent distension of the muscles which is necessary in the exertions of beings merely human; but in general their attitudes are unnatural, and the actions strained. If a statue, for instance, hold any thing with its fore fingers, the rest are stretched out in a stiff position.

According to ancient history, the Greeks did not emerge from the savage state till a long time after the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Indians, had arrived at a considerable degree of civilization. The original rude inhabitants of Greece were civilized by colonies which arrived among them, at different times, from Egypt and Phenicia. These brought along with them the religion, the letters, and the arts of their parent countries and if sculpture had its origin from the worship of idols, there is reason to believe that it was one of the arts which were thus imported; for that the gods of Greece were of Egyptian and Phenician extraction is a fact incontrovertible; (see MYSTERIES, MYTHOLOGY, PHILOLOGY, Sect. VII. PHILOSOPHY, N° 19, and TITAN). The original statues of the gods, however, were very rude. The earliest objects of idolatrous

worship

14

Causes

ture in Greece.

worship have everywhere been the heavenly bodies; and the symbols consecrated to them were generally pillars of a conical or pyramidal figure. It was not till hero-worship was engrafted on the planetary, that the sculptor thought of giving to the sacred statue any part of the human form (see POLYTHEISM, N° 19, 23.); and it appears to have been about the era of their revolution in idolatry that the art of sculpture was introduced among the Greeks. The first representations of their gods were round stones placed upon cubes or pillars; and these stones they afterwards formed roughly, so as to give them something of the appearance of a head. Agreeable to this description was a Jupiter, which Pausanias saw in Tegeum, in Arcadia. These representations were called Hermes; not that they represented Mercury, but from the word Herma, which signified a rough stone. It is the name which Homer gives to the stones which were used to fix vessels to the shore. Pausanias saw at Pheres 30 deities made of unformed blocks or cubical stones. The Lacedæmonians represented Castor and Pollux by two parallel posts; and a transverse beam was added, to express their mutual affection.

If the Greeks derived from foreign nations the rudiments of the arts, it must redound much to their honour, that in a few centuries they carried them to such wonderful perfection as entirely to eclipse the fame of their masters. It is by tracing the progress of sculpture among them that we are to study the history of this art; and we shall see its origin and successive improvements correspond with nature, which always operates slowly and gradually.

VIEW OF GRECIAN SCULPTURE.

THE great superiority of the Greeks in the art of which pro- sculpture may be ascribed to a variety of causes. The moted the influence of climate over the human body is so striking, art of scup that it must have fixed the attention of every thinking man who has reflected on the subject. The violent heats of the torrid zone, and the excessive cold of the polar regions, are unfavourable to beauty. It is only in the mild climates of the temperate regions that it appears in its most attractive charms. Perhaps no country in the world enjoys a more serene air, less tainted with mist and vapours, or possesses in a higher degree that mild and genial warmth which can unfold and expand the human body into all the symmetry of muscular strength, and all the delicacies of female beauty, in greater perfection, than the happy climate of Greece; and never was there any people that had a greater taste for beauty, or were more anxious to improve it. Of the four wishes of Simonides, the second was to have a handsome figure. The love of beauty was so great among the Lacedæmonian women, that they kept in their chambers the statues of Nereus, of Narcissus, of Hyacinthus, and of Castor and Pollux; hoping that by often contemplating them they might have beautiful

children.

There was a variety of circumstances in the noble and virtuous freedom of the Grecian manners that rendered these models of beauty peculiarly subservient to the cultivation of the fine arts. There were no tyrannical laws, as among the Egyptians, to check their progress. They had the best opportunities to study them in the

public places, where the youth, who needed no other veil than chastity and purity of manners, performed their various exercises quite naked. They had the strongest motives to cultivate sculpture, for a statue was the highest honour which public merit could attain. It was an honour ambitiously sought, and granted only to those who had distinguished themselves in the eyes of their fellow citizens. As the Greeks preferred natural qualities to acquired accomplishments, they decreed the first rewards to those who excelled in agility and strength of body. Statues were often raised to wrestlers. Even the most eminent men of Greece, in their youth, sought renown in gymnastic exercises. Chrysippus and Cleanthes distinguished themselves in the public games before they were known as philosophers. Plato appeared as a wrestler both at the Isthmian and Pythian games; and Pythagoras carried off the prize at Elis, (see PyTHAGORAS). The passion by which they were inspired was the ambition of having their statues erected in the most sacred place of Greece, to be seen and admired by the whole people. The number of statues erected on different occasions was immense; of course the number of artists must have been great, their emulation ardent, and their progress rapid.

As most of their statues were decreed for those who vanquished in the public games, the artists had the opportunity of seeing excellent models; for those who surpassed in running, boxing, and wrestling, must in general have been well formed, yet would exhibit different kinds of beauty.

The high estimation in which sculptors were held was very favourable to their art. Socrates declared the artists the only wise men. An artist could be a legislator, a commander of armies, and might hope to have his statue placed beside those of Miltiades and Themistocles, or those of the gods themselves. Besides, the honour and success of an artist did not depend on the caprice of pride or of ignorance. The productions of art were estimated and rewarded by the greatest sages in the general assembly of Greece, and the sculptor who had executed his work with ability and taste was confident of obtaining immortality.

It was the opinion of Winkelman, that liberty was highly favourable to this art; but, though liberty is absolutely necessary to the advancement of science, it may be doubted whether the fine arts owe their improvement to it. Sculpture flourished most in Greece, when Pericles exercised the power of a king; and in the reign of Alexander, when Greece was conquered. It attained no perfection in Rome till Augustus had enslaved the Romans. It revived in Italy under the patronage of the family of Medici, and in France under the despotic rule of Louis XIV. It is the love of beauty, luxury, wealth, or the patronage of a powerful individual, that promotes the progress of this art.

15

16

It will now be proper to give a particular account of Grecian the ideas which the Greeks entertained concerning the ideas of standard of beauty in the different parts of the human beauty. body. And wit', respect to the head, the profile which they chiefly admired is peculiar to dignified beauty. It The profile. consists in a line almost straight, or marked by such slight and gentle inflections as are scarcely distinguishable from a straight line. In the figures of women and young persons, the forehead and nose form a line approaching to a perpendicular.

Ancient